Definition Of Traditional Marriage [Pic+]

Submitted by: Draculya 3 years ago in

Or Rather, Definitions
There are 47 comments:
Male 675
I don`t understand why we are having a religious argument about a moral code set in a 3,000 year old book that is somehow preventing a law being passed in what is supposed to be a government run as if its` Atheist. As for Civil Unions and Marriage as separate entities no, that does not work. We already had this "separate but equal" argument in the 60`s, it doesn`t work. Under the law both need to be seen as marriage, what you and your congregation call it is up to you, no one cares. Which brings me to my next point, why do -you- care? Seriously, if they don`t follow your exact sect or any religion at all why do you care? Their immortal soul is not a bargaining chip to shrug off all the other religious laws and customs. God gave them free will, you forcing your religious law on them violates their constitutional rights to freedom of religion and their God given right to free will.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]Then what the hell is your question? Why does marriage come with a bunch of legal stuff attached? [/quote]

The question is why should you have to get married to do those things. Why not allow them without marriage too?
0
Reply
Male 39,880

So many mean spirted people.
My life doesn`t affect you. Doesn`t hurt you in any way. But you`re determined to make sure I don`t see happiness. It makes you feel whole to withhold from others, doesn`t it. Well I am still whole and you are still empty. You need to find Jesus.
0
Reply
Male 39,880

Musuko42, [quote]"I personally know a gay couple who have been together for over 25 years. They now have a civil partnership (and will have marriage when it takes effect here), so that when one of them dies, the surviving partner doesn`t lose their shared income (pension), nor have to sell their home of a quarter century in order to pay the inheritence tax.

Send me a private message and I`ll give you their email addresses so you can tell them in person why their civil partnership/marriage is "just a piece of paper".

D*ck."[/quote]

I think I love you
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@Musuko42: Please read my more recent post. You are justifying the existence of a bad law because it mitigates the consequences of another bad law.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

"That wasn`t the question."

Then what the hell is your question? Why does marriage come with a bunch of legal stuff attached?

In answer: I don`t know, and I don`t particularly care. The fact is that it DOES, and it IS more than just a ceremony and a piece of paper, despite whatever you think it SHOULD be.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]This isn`t a debate about whether or not marriage should exist. [/quote]

That wasn`t the question.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

"why should you offer things to only those who marry and not to couples who don`t want to there`s lots of them"

This isn`t a debate about whether or not marriage should exist.

Marriage DOES exist, and until that changes it should be fairly available to all, without discrimination based on gender.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Musuko42

Marriage is just that a ceremony and a piece of paper stating you`r now together because you weren`t before somehow. So why should pension and such require it. I have no problem with gay couples being married but if you`re going to go on about equality then why should you offer things to only those who marry and not to couples who don`t want to there`s lots of them.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@Angilion

"If I marry a man, all I care about is the legal rights. I don`t care whether it`s on form 44A or 44B, exactly the same except for the title line."

If all the straight people have to use 44A and all the gay people have to use 44B, and they`re identical, all is fine right up to the point a future government changes the law to modify or remove 44B (or 44A if things went weird), which they`d be able to do more easily than if they had to disentangle a unified institution.

Case in point, and I know everyone hates it being brought up, but segregation in the US was meant to be seperate but equal...but once the two halves were separated, it became mighty easy to give one half a worse situation than the other.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@OldOllie

"You can solve that with a simple will. Next question?"

No you can`t. Inheritance tax will kick in unless it`s being left to a spouse or family. That can lead to homes having to be sold to pay for it.

And you can`t will pension income. If you`re married, your surviving partner can continue to collect your pension.

So you tell me: if you love someone, would you want them to be destitute and homeless if you died? Or would you want to protect them with the same mechanism that other couples all around you are able to use to protect their loved ones?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

I personally know a gay couple who have been together for over 25 years. They now have a civil partnership (and will have marriage when it takes effect here), so that when one of them dies, the surviving partner doesn`t lose their shared income (pension), nor have to sell their home of a quarter century in order to pay the inheritence tax.

Send me a private message and I`ll give you their email addresses so you can tell them in person why their civil partnership/marriage is "just a piece of paper".

D*ck.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@papajon0s1

"I say we save the term "marriage" for a man and a woman acting under the umbrella of intended procreation."

Sterile couples are allowed to get married. How can marriage be about procreation if that`s the case?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
If Christians of old were allowed to overrule the rules of the Old Testament with the New Testament, then we today are allowed to overrule the rules of the New Testament with whatever rules we decide are better.

Oh, right, that whole "rules given by god" thing. Give me a sec.

...

Okay, God just spoke to me and told me it`s cool to decide for ourselves. We`re good everyone.

You don`t believe me? Where`s your faith?!
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Gerry, I`m not trolling; I`m dead serious. I don`t think ANYONE should pay inheritance tax. I think you should be able to name ANYONE as the beneficiary of your retirement account or life insurance. I think you should be able to assign ANYONE your power of attorney for medical decisions.

If you can think of a law that unfairly benefits heterosexual married couples, the answer is to get rid of the damned law altogether.
0
Reply
Male 39,880

Ollie is trolling now. If the rich and powerful can`t repeal the inheritance tax how good are the odds for a bunch of homos?

Bottom line, who I marry is none of your business. But as long as the government taxes property I`m afraid I will have to insist on the same rights you have. I know it`s selfish of me to want to be treated just like a "real" person like you, but I do.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Ollie, yes you can solve it with a will ... and pay inheritance tax. [/quote]
So, repeal the inheritance tax. Next question?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]As for Civil Unions and Marriage as separate entities no, that does not work.[/quote]

Actually, it does. We had it here for years. Worked just fine. They were legally defined as being identical to each other.

Of course, people called them both marriage anyway. Nobody was saying "Bob and Tony are entering into a civil partnership". They said "Bob and Tony are getting married". Anyone who disapproved would disapprove regardless of what it was called.

Unsurprisingly, enough people wanted a fight anyway, with absolute disregard for legal rights. So there was a fight purely over a word with no meaning, for the sake of a fight. Woo, awesome victory of righteousness heroism!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I also favour some changes in terminology, but I can provide reasoning for mine.

Three different things are currently splodged together under the word `marriage`. This is pointless, inaccurate and leads to arguments and deception. So I`d acknowledge that they are 3 different things and give them different names;

1) Personal. A declaration of commitment to each other. Since it`s personal, it has no state recognition and no legal status. I`d call this `wedding`, since `wedding` means `to vow` (from O.E. `weddian`). Open to any people who can understand what it is.

2) State recognition of a formalised relationship. This is where all the legal rights and responsibilities rest. I`d call it a civil partnership, as that`s what it is. Open to whoever the states says, in whatever combinations the state allows - this is a legal thing.

3) Religious recognition of the relationship. Up to whatever clergy the people want. I`d call it `blessing`.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote] If we are redefining things then I say we save the term "marriage" for a man and a woman acting under the umbrella of intended procreation. I say we use the term "union" to describe anyone who wishes to have the rights of the stated intention of being in a committed relationship with someone else.[/quote]

OK, you`re going for equal rights under the law and that`s a good thing. Personally, I`m fine with that. If I marry a man, all I care about is the legal rights. I don`t care whether it`s on form 44A or 44B, exactly the same except for the title line.

But it doesn`t make any real sense. You`re redefining the word `marriage` without any reason for doing so. Your redefinition is even sillier, since you also exclude heterosexual couples who can`t or don`t intend to have children. Would you impose divorce on every hetero couple when the woman reaches menopause? Or if either has to be sterlised for medical reasons? If not, why not?
0
Reply
Male 675
I don`t understand why we are having a religious argument about a moral code set in a 3,000 year old book that is somehow preventing a law being passed in what is supposed to be a government run as if its` Atheist. As for Civil Unions and Marriage as separate entities no, that does not work. We already had this "separate but equal" argument in the 60`s, it doesn`t work. Under the law both need to be seen as marriage, what you and your congregation call it is up to you, no one cares. Which brings me to my next point, why do -you- care? Seriously, if they don`t follow your exact sect or any religion at all why do you care? Their immortal soul is not a bargaining chip to shrug off all the other religious laws and customs. God gave them free will, you forcing your religious law on them violates their constitutional rights to freedom of religion and their God given right to free will.
0
Reply
Male 39,880

Ollie, yes you can solve it with a will ... and pay inheritance tax. Why should a spouse pay tax on the property they jointly own just because their mate died off?

If you wife dies do you have to buy-back her half of the house from the government in the form of taxes?
0
Reply
Male 39,880

McGovern, no. Children do get some benefit in military, but not the same as spousal survival benefits. And no one can claim your ssi except your spouse. No you cannot transfer them.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Could you transfer SS and military benefits without marriage? You should be able to.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Ollie, property ownership is very much the concern of the guvment and marriage and inheritance is tied up with that.[/quote]
You can solve that with a simple will. Next question?
0
Reply
Male 39,880

McGovern, I don`t believe in pre-nups. I think they are a bad thing and undermine marriage.

Think about it; the person you are marrying is supposed to be the person you love and trust beyond all others in the whole world! A prenup is designed to protect you from that person.... maybe, if you feel the need for a prenup, you shouldn`t marry them in the first place.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Gerry1of1

and that`s why the loard saidith I givest thou a prenuptual agreement. So that if thines biotch still won`t shutupith after she gets a shiny rock on metal bandith. Thine goldddigger wont takith everything dost ownith! AHHHAHAAAMEEENNN!
0
Reply
Male 39,880

5Cats continued

so you see, there are 3 or 4 quotes off the top of my head where the Bible says the law does NOT change, but 1 quote where it does. CHERRY PICKING. "We like that one so bring on the bacon!"

Bottom line, JESUS said to obey the law and Mark said eat bacon.... who you gonna believe if you are a TRUE christian?

How is it the mascot atheist fag at IAB has to quote the bible? Were are the religionists at IAB to defend their faith?

Here`s a fun fact, studies show that atheists know more about the Bible than christians do. I guess because we actually read the damn thing. That`s what made me an atheist! Reading the Bible is the best way to convince you it`s all poo.
0
Reply
Male 39,880

5Cats, [quote]"@Gerry, doesn`t the NT -specifically- say the food laws (Kosher) no longer apply? Ditto for animal sacrifice, circumcision and a host of other laws & rules?"[/quote]
If I tell you you wont learn nothing! Look it up.

Okay, I`ll tell you... No the New Testament does NOT cancel the Holiness Code in the book of Leviticus. Specifically Paul says that the Torah should be followed [Romans 3:31]. Also look at 1 John 3:4, it also says the laws do not change. And as I already posted, Jesus {who`s real name is Joshua} said He did NOT change the laws. Mathew 5:17.

However, in Mark 7:18 it says "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?"
0
Reply
Male 40,728
@Gerry1, doesn`t the NT -specifically- say the food laws (Kosher) no longer apply? Ditto for animal sacrifice, circumcision and a host of other laws & rules?

@PapaJohn1: I agree. There should be "Civic Unions" for all people, covered by Governments and "Marriages" covered by religions.

Entirely separate.

People already have to register with the Gov`t, what difference does it make?
0
Reply
Male 39,880

McGovern, you know marriage is more than paper. It automatically cuts in rights and responsibilities. Inheritance, ownership, medical power of attorney just for starters. Housewives collect social security based on their husbands income even after he dies. Spouse survivor benefits for military personnel.

Marriage is not just paper/ceremony to say "look at us, we`re together!".

The divorce rate is another thread altogether. One I would be happy to comment on, but not here.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Marriage: A piece of paper and/or ceremony saying you will always be together because somehow you weren`t before and we`re surprised why so many end in divorce.
0
Reply
Male 39,880

@ papajon0s1, If a couple marry, but it turns out they can`t have kids you are saying they are no longer "married" then.

What about gay couples that want kids. We do procreate you know. Sometimes adoption, sometimes surrogate mothers. Sometimes the sperm of both guys is mixed together before fertilization so you don`t know who`s the genetic father. That way they both feel they are.

And an older man/woman couple would not be married?

How about we take the simple route and just stop limiting it to who has which genitalia?
0
Reply
Male 579
After reading the article and the comments, I remain unimpressed. If we are redefining things then I say we save the term "marriage" for a man and a woman acting under the umbrella of intended procreation. I say we use the term "union" to describe anyone who wishes to have the rights of the stated intention of being in a committed relationship with someone else. All that said, there is no hate here. No malice. No denying anyone of rights say to insurnace or wills or visitation. That`s just how I think it should be defined.
0
Reply
Male 39,880

TruTenrMan, [quote]"Gerry, most of the Old Testament laws were overwritten with the New Covenant."[/quote]
That is a modern myth christians who don`t read the bible use to cherry pick the rules they want to obey vs the ones they want to enforce on other {gayness}.

Mathew 5:17, Jesus said "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil." So there you go, Jesus said the law DOES NOT CHANGE from the old testament. You still aren`t supposed to eat pork or shellfish. And you can marry the girl you rape as long as you pay her father for damages.

It`s not my religion, don`t blame me if it`s nuttier than squirrel poo.
0
Reply
Male 4,745
TruTenrMan:
"Gerry, most of the Old Testament laws were overwritten with the New Covenant."
------

Well, isn`t that convenient? Don`t like the old rules? Make up new ones. But hey, remember to still keep the old rules that we like and discard the ones we don`t. Pick and choose...pick and choose.
0
Reply
Male 4,745
This is all very simple. It`s a matter of human rights. You can`t say that one human has the right to marry a person they love but another person does not. You are taking away the rights of another person that you gave yourself. It is just wrong and you are an asshat for doing it.
0
Reply
Male 2,552
Gerry, most of the Old Testament laws were overwritten with the New Covenant.
0
Reply
Male 2,552
When the link said "Huffingtonpost.com" I closed it.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Sourced at HuffPo, didn`t read.
0
Reply
Male 39,880

Ollie, property ownership is very much the concern of the guvment and marriage and inheritance is tied up with that.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Marriage should not be a concern of the government at all.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
I feel like this post would`ve been very cutting edge in 2006.
0
Reply
Male 40,728
Sure! Just like:

-polygamy
-child marriage
-arranged marriage (forced)

All of which were, or still are, perfectly legal!

So bring them all on! "Western Culture" is far LESS important than what Egyptians did 3,000 years ago!!
0
Reply
Male 309
Marriage: Just a thing people made up to call dibs on other people.
0
Reply
Male 39,880
0
Reply
Male 15,259
Link: Definition Of Traditional Marriage [Pic+] [Rate Link] - Or Rather, Definitions
0
Reply